Integral Ecology discussion

I was informed by Archive Fire blog of a reading and discussion group for the book Integral Ecology.

The first post is up at Knowledge Ecology blog. His review of the Intro and Chapter One confirms a strict kennilingus orientation in the material. Not surprising but also not all that interesting, to me. A good thing about this first review is that the blogger is not completely convinced and has several questions, some following:

First, Integral Ecology is positing both a multiple epistemological and ontological system, and yet, despite this nod to ontology, are we really talking about anything more than “multiple perspectives?” Second, if we accept that interiority is a fundamental feature of the cosmos, operating at different levels, how do we approach the relationship between internal and external dimensions of a given entity? The AQAL approach seems to imply a consistent, geometric symmetry between inner and outer, or individual and collective, in what sense is this accurately descriptive of the terrain it is trying to map? Third, integral theorists are generally critical of those who are themselves critical of hierarchical or developmental schemes. Without rejecting the hierarchical nature of many natural phenomena, how do we critically think the notion of “levels” in the AQAL model with specific regard to how these distinctions manifest in intercultural environments and other contested areas of dialogue, where difference is a significant feature of the encounter?

As yet there are no comments to this opening.

Cameron Freeman on Derrida

In my research I came upon an Integral Life post of no significance with the usual kennilingus, but the comment by Cameron Freeman basically stopped the thread with his heresy. Excerpts of his sin follow:

I want to focus here on the connection between Judaism and the work of Jacques Derrida, arguably the most dangerous thinker in post-modernity – in order to show that Derrida is probably a more integrally orientated writer than many people realize. For my taste Derrida is a modern day Jewish prophet, for he exposes a certain "coefficient of uncertainty" in all of on our favorite texts and institutions, which causes all of us, democrats and republicans, religious and secular, the reasonable and the faithful, considerable discomfort.

He showed the green v-meme (post-modernity) that the destabilizing agency in his work is not a reckless relativism or nihilism but rather an affirmation, a love of what in later years he would call the “un-deconstructible.” For Derrida, the un-deconstructible is both a “singularity” as well as a pure and unconditional affirmation...an affirmation of something un-imaginable and inconceivable by our current standards of imagining and conceiving.

Caputo on pomo & relativism

John Caputo has been a major influence on me and has been pivotal in my understanding Derrida, as the latter's own writings can at times (but not always) be inscrutable. The following excerpts are from an interview clarifying what  postmodernism is and answering the spurious charge as to its relativism. I appreciate his clear, concise and easily understandable style and hope that he can answer your own questions along these lines. The excerpts:


Post-modernism is a catchword that has caught on. I use the word “post-modernism” when I want to draw a crowd. So when I run a conference, I always say it’s about post-modernism.

It’s not the best word in the world. It’s a word that belongs to architecture originally. The more technical word, I think, to describe the state of philosophy these days is “post-structuralism.” Which is a critique of structuralist ways of thinking. But let’s just stick with the word “post-modernism, ” and let’s say that modernism means the tradition running roughly from Descartes through the first half of the 20th century. It’s a tradition that recognizes, that draws very sharp lines between subject and object, private and public, professional and amateur, knowledge and emotion, faith and reason.

But when you use the word “post-modernism,” the sort paradigmatic modernist would be Kant, who divides the world up into three critical domains, where the Greek word “krisis” means boundary or divider. So that you have knowledge which is pure knowledge, you have ethics which is pure ethics, and you have art which is pure art. So you get art for the sake of art, ethics as pure duty, knowledge as a purely cognitive undertaking.

Swami Beyondananda aka Steve Bhaerman

Many of us grew up with this comic performer who made light of our new age beliefs. But he is also a serious thinker and also into the next wave of evolution, not just in consciousness but in political institutions. To kick off this thread I'll just post his recent blog on the whole end-of-the-world thing, but there is much more to come.

The BEGINNING of the World As We “Know” It?

Posted on May 24, 2011 by admin

“So the world didn’t end on May 21st. Sure, those who hoped to live happily ever rapture are a little disappointed, but hey – it’s not the end of the world, right?”
– Swami Beyondananda

Otto Scharmer

Otto Scharmer came up a few times in the Varela thread so why not give him his own esteemed thread (at IPS)? His website is at this link and his blog can be found here. Here is a bit from the site.

From the Projects page:

Transforming Capitalism

The transforming capitalism initiative creates conversations with pioneers for a green, regenerative economy that works for 100% of humanity and earth. We intend to convene conversations that serve as a vehicle for an emerging global shift to a different civilizational model which works in ways that are more environmentally sustainable, personally empowering, socially inclusive, culturally creative, and societally transformative.

From the Publications page, articles and papers, “Seven acupuncture points for shifting capitalism to create a regenerative ecosystem economy”:

New Wall Street investigation

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone is on to a new Wall Street investigation that appears to have some teeth. The NY AG is looking into the banks’ mortgage securitization process. I hope this is legitimate and results in some convictions for the crime of the century. From the article:

This investigation has the potential to be a Mother of All Nightmares situation for the banks for a couple of reasons. For one thing, the decision to go after the securitization process is a total prosecutorial bullseye. This is the ugly heart of the wide-scale fraud scheme of the bubble era. Again, the business model during this time was a giant bait-and-switch scam. Sleazy lenders like Countrywide and New Century first created huge masses of bad loans, committing every conceivable kind of fraud to get people into loans (from doctoring income statements with white-out to phonying FICO scores to engineering fake appraisals). They then moved the bad loans quickly to the big banks, which pooled them and chopped them up (this is the “securitization” process), sprinkled hocus-pocus math on them, and them sold them to suckers around the world as AAA-rated securities.

The Shock Doctrine documentary

Both Archive Fire and Integral Options blogs have recently linked to the documentary made from Klein's book of this title. It is timely, given the conservative, totalitarian takeovers of government we've been seeing in the US recently. The film provides a fascinating history of the Chicago School of Economics and how it was implemented, by Fridman's own admissions, on the shock doctrine. It is an ideology that does not mix at all with actual democracy, the later in fact being antithetical to its narrative.

Economic Transition Income

Arnsperger's latest blog post talks about a economic transitional income (ETI) that supports alternative, sustainable lifestyles. And this income would be a government welfare program for those that chose this more frugal, less consumptive way of life. This transitional income would be reduced over time as more sustainable economies gained ground and generated their own income, with the result being a transition into this as the main economy with the gradual phase out of what he calls industrial-financial-capitalism. He not only envisions what we're moving toward but how to get get there practically. I hope I'm still alive to see and participate in this ETI and be part of creating this new political-economy. (Actually I am now is small ways like promoting these ideas and already choosing a less consumptive lifestyle, but I could do more with societal support and assistance.) And note below its “spiritual” orientation. From section 4:4:

One central addition to the set of renewed framework conditions would be a deep overhaul of the current income-redistribution logic of our social democracies.

The most pressing issue, therefore, is what shape the transition toward a frugal economy will take.

But the transition to a post-fossil fuel age is not only a matter of external adjustments, but also of an altered worldview, a new conception of the good life. New macro-systemic conditions and an evolution in worldview actually go hand in hand and are a necessary condition for changes in personal behaviors and in spiritual as well as cognitive modifications.

Refresher on postmetaphysics

Perhaps I should again clarify what I mean by the terms "metaphysical" and "postmetaphysical." I don't think that postmetaphysics means the elimination of metaphysics concerning ontological statements, for of course postmeta partakes in that. As Balder said, "a post-metaphysical view does not reject metaphysics altogether, but reframes it and  holds it in a different way." Or put another way, remember this from the “Sunday Sermon” thread:

"Post-modernism is often understood simply to be a reversal of the many over the one. And although that may be the case with many post-modern thinkers this is simply modernity in another guise. Both Luce Irigaray and Raimon Panikkar have observed that the hegemony of the one can also take the guise of a multiplicity of private or relative truths. For Irigaray especially, breaking the hegemony of the one does not entail an abandonment of the idea of the universal but rather a recovery of a concept of the universal freed from its metaphysical pretensions.”

So then what does "metaphysics" otherwise mean if not an ontological commitment? What exactly is the criticism? I appreciate how Lakoff & Johnson frame this in Philosophy in the Flesh, as quoted in the “witness consciousness” thread:

Postmetaphysical Puritanism

Balder started a new thread by this name at IPS. Following are some excerpts:

Mary:

In that article that Bruce linked to Lears writes: "As their critics began to realize, positivists had abandoned the provisionality of science’s experimental outlook by transforming science from a method into a metaphysic, a source of absolute certainty."

I was thinking earlier today, while going over a few posts here, that sometimes I see echoes of this kind of thing in discussions on this forum. In certain ways, postmetaphysics is held up as a kind of gold standard against which to measure or judge other ways of thinking and being. I mean, of course, it's a forum on postmetaphysics, duh -- but what I'd noticed were phrases suggestive of a .... postmetaphysical "puritanism" (or asceticism) -- a seeming yearning to cleanse or purge one's thinking of ideas and attitudes with any scent of the metaphysical on it.